The interesting bit here is now the Democrats are warning their constituents that the filthy Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment. Now THERE, my friends, is a fantastic idea. Posted on 08/03/2010 6:25:01 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
There's an excellent Peggy Noonan column pointing out that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, not necessarily the Tea Party, is the model for conservative Republicans ought to follow. The entire column is really worth a read ... but this one paragraph stood out:
"Thus the new DNC scare ad, which features the usual "Jaws"-like monster music, and then the charge that the Tea Party and the GOP are "one and the same." Not only that, they're cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."
Well, this is pretty much standard for Democrats in campaign mode. In every single election since 1952 Democrats have tried to frighten the catheters right out of our wizened citizens by telling them that the evil Republicans were going to take away their Social Security. For 58 years they've been pushing this guano, and after 58 years Social Security is still there.
The interesting bit here is now the Democrats are warning their constituents that the filthy Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment. Now THERE, my friends, is a fantastic idea.
Some of you will remember that I devoted a chapter in my last book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It" to repealing the 17th Amendment. Then Democrat Senator Zell Miller (he was once my boss, by the way) thought it was a good idea and actually introduced a resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 17th before leaving the Senate. Interesting, isn't it? A Democrat calls for repeal and it becomes a Republican thing.
So ... what's the big deal? Just what does the 17th Amendment actually do? It makes the 50 State governments pretty much powerless in Washington, that's what. Under our Constitution --- our original Constitution --- the House of Representatives was supposed to represent the interests of the people in
Washington, and the Senate was supposed to represent the interests of state governments. The members of the House were elected by a vote of the people that the House members represented. Similarly, the members of the Senate were chosen by the States the Senate represented. The legislatures of the various states would appoint the Senators.
This all changed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 allowing for the popular election of Senators. The 17th Amendment moved us closer to the form of government called "democracy" that our founding fathers abhorred. Some of you who have been reading the Nuze for a while know that during the time of the founding of our Republic it was considered slanderous to refer to someone as a democrat. It was considered to be an insult. The word "democrat" was an epithet. (Much as it is becoming today).
Here's something for you to chew on. New Mexico, like Arizona, is having a problem with the Mexican invasion. The problem is certainly more severe in Arizona, but New Mexico is facing difficulties as well. Now ... consider the fact that after the 17th Amendment became law the State of New Mexico no longer had an official representative in Washington DC. Yeah ... think about that. The country of Mexico has an official representative in DC ... the STATE of Mexico does not. Remember ... now both the Senators and Representatives represent the people. The state governments have no official representation. Foreign countries have ambassadors ... our own states have nothing.
Can you imagine how our own battle with illegal immigration might be different if the Senators still represented state governments? Illegals cost state governments tens of billions of dollars. The children of illegals have to be educated and their emergency medical needs must be tended to. Then there is the crime costs associated with illegals. Here are just a few estimates of the cost of illegal immigration to some individual states:
And then there's Arizona ... the cost there is over $1.3 billion a year. Arizona tries to do something to solve the problem. It's clear that the federal government will do nothing to control illegal immigration so long as The Community Organizer is in office ... so the Arizona legislature steps up. As soon as Arizona passes its law many other states reveal plans to do the same. The Obama steps up and orders the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona ... to sue Arizona for its attempt to enforce laws that the federal government refuses to support. How might this have all been different if Arizona, New Mexico and all of the other states considering passing laws to stem the invasion of illegals had official representation in Washington in the person of two Senators each? Obama needs the Senate to get his leftist, anti-individualist agenda passed. Is he going to tell the states to pound sand when it comes to immigration law? Hardly.
Then there's the issue of unfunded mandates. Medicaid would be the prime example here. There can't be a state in our nation that isn't wrestling with the federally-mandated costs of dealing with Medicaid. How do you think this situation might change if senators representing the states, and not the Medicaid beneficiaries, had a voice in policy?
So .. the Democrats want to use a Republican threat of repealing the 17th Amendment to frighten voters? This, if it is in fact true, should be seen as a positive ... not a negative. It's time to strengthen state governments at the expense of federal power.
Repeal the 17th? Let's do it!
Nonsense. The people do not vote directly for any federal legislation, and they don't vote directly for the president.
The US is a representative Republic.
“This violated the Constitution which says “no state, without it’s consent, can be deprived of it’s sufferage in the Senate”. (that means 100% concurrence)”
There is more solid documentation that this is applicable to the 14th than the 17th. I agree with others that say it would be MUCH more politicized if done by the legislatures. Term limits is a better approach for improved representation.
But, in the final analysis, the legislative AND the executive branches of the Federal govt. are submissive to the lifetime appt. of the Federal judiciary - likely the biggest mistake of the Founding Fathers.
Hmmm. I guess public libraries go back further than I thought.
If you cannot see that the State of California is different from the people of California then I cannot help you. THE STATES ARE ENTITIES and were part of the model that made it a Republic. Replacing these entities with mob votes removes the essential feature of a Republic.
You completely miss the point. The point is, in today's political environment, who would do a better job of selecting US Senators, state legislators or the people. State legislatures are notoriously corrupt these days, and I much prefer that the people elect US Senators.
Often out of state money at that. A rich state like California can buy off senators from other states. The senate was intended to prevent the large states from dominating the country. The 17th amdmendment gives them even more influence. Ever wonder why Senator Fritz Hollings (aka Senator Foghorn Leghorn) always represented the Hollywood's and the recording industry's excessively restrictive interpretation of copyrights against his own constituents' interests?
Utter nonsense. Once we depart from the theoretical world, those ENTITIES are going to be represented by people, or they aren't going to be represented at all. And those people are go to be elected by the mob, as you like to term the citizens of the states.
I think that going with what the founders set up is a good idea. I think the founders has a much better grasp on this issue that you or I do. If Senators screwed their states over (voting for unfunded mandates, etc.) before the 17th, they were recalled by the legislature and replaced, now they are regularly rewarded with re-election for doing so. I think it is plainly evident that since the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments things have kind of gone to hell in a handbasket. Getting rid of one or both would be a good start to setting things right.
PS: 53% of the people you say would elect better Senators voted for Obama in 2008.
Likewise...utter nonsense.
What is wrong with so much of what you have said is that you talk as if there is some unique, independent body out there with God-like wisdom who is electing those sainted state legislators who are so free of any populist influence.
The problem with that is, the same voters in a state who elect the reps. to the US House also elect the reps. and senators to the state legislatures. I just fail to see how those state legislators, elected by the voters in the states, will have such unique wisdom to select US Senators in a manner so superior to the voters in the state who are electing all the other office holders, including the state legislators.
The same voters acting on the same political beliefs and desires are electing all the people involved. The presumed independence and unique wisdom of the state legislatures to do a better job of selecting US Senators does not exist.
A Republic is a form of government which does not have a monarch, and where the people elect representatives to represent them in the legislative body. And that’s it. The US as it now is is a representative Republic.
You are trying to throw in the additional requirement that the upper chamber of a bicameral legislature must be selected by the state legislatures. Not only is that untrue, but its is not even necessary for a representative Republic to have two legislative bodies.
The US is a representative Republic because we don’t have a monarch, and because the people are represented in both houses of Congress by representatives who vote on their behalf.
I never wrote any of that. I fail to understand why you think that this progressive inspired scheme works better than what the founders set up. You think the progressives knew better? Whatever. I’ll go with the founders judgement any day. It appears to me the government worked better before the progressives pushed the 17th through than it works now.
Yep, good first step prescription. It is TIME to DownSize DC!
Eliminate entire departments.
Force Congress and Senate to telecommute from their home district all but a few weeks a year. Away from the lobbyist and under the thumbs of the electorate.
IT IS TIME!
Repeal the 17th Amendment? Great idea....thanks DNC!
everything...replace with honest ideas backed by principles and integrity. The public libraries have been infected!
Much has been said, but still no one has provided the examples of how things worked so much better before the 17th amendment, how those US Senators chosen by state legislatures protected the interests of the states better than senators have since the 17th was passed.
This is not the time of the founders. In today's political environment, I far prefer that the voters of a state pick the US Senators rather than state legislatures.
I am answering several people and some of the points I mentioned were from another poster, but the same assumptions are present: that state legislatures are better able to pick US Senators that will protect the interests of states than the voters of the states (who elect the state legislators).
You should read the scholarly papers by Todd Zywicki in this thread, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, especially this one. It lays out the common reasons why the 17th passed, and then tries to disprove them by pointing out incongruities in the arguments, and then finally explains a market within the Senate for trading political votes based on longevity (the ability to back up the promise of future votes due to the guarantee of being there).
You might even think of this as the foundation for the creation of the Ruling Class as depicted in this lengthy essay.
The bottom line is that the original system wasn't corrupt enough, which is why the 17th was passed -- to give Senators (as power brokers) the ability to promise to deliver legislation because of the guarantee of remaining in the Senate long enough to make good on trades for votes.
-PJ
“This is not the time of the founders. In today’s political environment, I far prefer that the voters of a state pick the US Senators rather than state legislatures.”
So maybe we should have a “living” constitution because human nature has changed so much? Is that what you mean? Whatever. Again, despite what you think, I do not think you or the progressives that pushed the 17th through know better than the founders did. The country was freer before 1913 and the states had more power. Do you think we are more free now than we were before 1913? Do you think that is just a coincidence? I would like to see this amendment and the 16th repealed. Period.
More nonsense. When the people elect, it is called a representative democracy. State (as in State of Utah)representation made it a Republic. It has nothing to do with monarchs. You have been had by the 17th. That was what Madison was trying to protect us from.
It has nothing to do with a living constitution or not. And the 17th amendment was, well, an amendment, a change as provided for by the founders. 1,000% constitutional. It's all these changes in the constitution coming through activists courts that people should be most concerned about.
It has to do with the nature of politics in 2010 and the nature of state legislatures. Hell no, I don't want the state legislatures of 2010 picking US Senators. You're dwelling in a time that no longer exists, and the question of how US Senators should be picked in 2010 needs to answered in 2010, and not 100 years ago.
All your talk of 1913 is irrelevant, unless you can turn back the clock and make changes in 1913 and bring them forward to 2010.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.